I’ll bet you want to spend your Monday reading about the “dormant Commerce Clause.” Your wish is my command.
Let’s start with history. Before the Constitution, “economic Balkanization … plagued relations among the Colonies and later among the States under the Articles of Confederation,” the Supreme Court wrote in 1979, which now seems like a long time ago.
Aiming to avoid that, the Framers adopted the Commerce Clause, which has “long been understood to prevent states from enacting laws that significantly impede free trade throughout the Union,” according to a Vox article here.
But this isn’t as simple or easy as it sounds, if states are to have any say about what’s sold inside their borders, even if it impacts producers outside their borders. For example, California also recently banned certain ingredients from cosmetics sold there, for health and safety reasons.
Another case in point, or rather, in litigation: California raises only 0.13% of the nation’s pork supply, but in 2018 California voters passed Proposition 12 banning sale of pork in California from pigs raised in inhumane cages, presumably because they don’t want to eat mistreated animals, only pampered ones (excluding dogs and cats).
This would close that market to Midwest pig farmers, unless they stop torturing pigs, which they complain would raise their costs. Does that violate the Commerce Clause?
Heck, I don’t know, I’m not the Supreme Court; as the saying goes, the Constitution means whatever five or more justices say it does. I can tell you what I think the court should decide in any given case, including this one, but given the court we have today, I wouldn’t bet on the pigs.
Nor would I bet on the court deciding Texas can’t dictate what people in New York, Chicago, and Seattle read on social media — consistency not being conservatives’ strong suit. But there’s a way around them this time: Don’t eat pork chops, bacon, or pork sausage. Go vegan.
Photo: This is what Proposition 12 aims to end, at least for California consumers
